Please do not email the editors or writers on this blog with requests for posting material. Those requests will be ignored. Instead, email Sports Law Blog (one word) -at- gmail -dot- com. We do not post advertisements (inculding events), we do not publish guest posts, and we are not interested in link swaps.

Information contained on this site is for informational or amusement purposes only. Nothing written is intended to be
legal advice or legal counsel. All original work is protected by applicable copyright laws. Thank you.

The good news for the NFL and the retired NFL players who support the
settlement is that they can rework it and then petition for Brody's
approval. One obvious correction would be to provide more data and
documentation to support the settlement's economic assumptions. A second
and more controversial step would be to increase the $765 million.
Whether NFL owners, who will share in paying this amount, are willing to
increase their contributions by a significant margin remains to be
seen. A 31 percent increase would bring the settlement amount to just
over $1 billion. Given the league's annual revenue of $9 billion to $10
billion, it could send a powerful message to Brody and skeptical retired
NFL players if a new proposed settlement at least crossed the billion
dollar line.
A reworked settlement could also reallocate some of the money that was
intended for medical research to retired players' health expenses. While
this move would raise a potentially different set of objections by
Brody, it would help to address her central criticism that not enough
money is being made available to retired players.

There are three key takeaways from the Maryland-ACC litigation.
First, both sides hope to litigate before home-state courts, with the
ACC holding the "home-court" advantage for the time being. The North
Carolina-headquartered ACC is surely appreciative to litigate before
North Carolina jurors and a judge elected by North Carolina voters.
Maryland, in contrast, would prefer to litigate before a Maryland court,
which would feature Maryland jurors and a judge who, though initially
appointed by the governor, must face Maryland voters to be retained.
While the law must be applied fairly by the courts of all states, trial
attorneys are mindful that local biases can sometimes play a crucial
difference in close cases. Should the ACC win in North Carolina, watch
for Maryland to attempt to convince a Maryland court to hear similar
claims.